Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The worst possible antitrust outcome

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 219 posts

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#121

Post by b_e_n_t_o_n »

onlypassingthru wrote: post #90
isleyaardvark wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His quote is stunningly disingenuous, I'm surprised to hear that coming from Doctorow. That Google has paid Apple to be the default search engine was a business deal that has been open knowledge for a decade or more. Other search engines could've paid to be the default. Apple didn't have a search engine when they created the iPhone, and why would they start? Ever? MS didn't do so well. And why would Apple want to mak…

Can you explain why Google Android can use Google search but Apple iOS can't use Apple search because that would be an anti-trust violation?

Probably the same reason why iOS can have Safari installed as default but MS got in trouble for IE years ago. These laws are applied very inconsistently.

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#122

Post by b_e_n_t_o_n »

worik wrote: post #104
pdonis wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unregulated market A free market is not unregulated. It's regulated by the voluntary choices of all market participants. The alternative is to have the market regulated by those who aren't participants--i.e., who have no skin in the game and who suffer no consequences if the regulations are bad. That's basically the situation we have now. Anyone who thinks that's a good thing isn't living on the same planet as I am…

> Virtually all monopolies, historically, have been due to government intervention in markets to give special privileges to certain players Really? * Search: What special privilege for Google? * Desktop OS: Microsoft? * On line retail: Amazon What am I missing? These firms got no "special privilege " from government, did they?

> These firms got no "special privilege " from government, did they?

They did and still do. They spend millions lobbying the government to make it harder for outsiders to break into their industries.

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#123

Post by bpt3 »

nielsbot wrote: post #115
bpt3 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at the effective tax rates and get back to me. You have a lot of thoughts on something you know very little about.

Are you're saying nominal tax rates have no correlation to effective tax rates? (Also, I am in favor of closing tax loopholes.)

No, I'm saying that the marginal rates you're salivating over produced effective rates on the highest earners that weren't much different from today.

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#124

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

"But second, because Judge Amit Mehta decided that the Google case should be shrouded in mystery, suppressing the publication of key exhibits and banning phones, cameras and laptops from the courtroom, with the effect that virtually no one even noticed that the most important antitrust case in tech history, a genuine trial of the century, was underway:

https://www.promarket.org/2023/10/27/google-monopolizes-judi...

But Judge Mehta turned his courtroom into a Star Chamber, a black hole whence no embarrassing information about Google's wicked deeds could emerge."

I did submit the Order to HN for discusssion

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45109044

People read the Opinion, but probably no one read the Order that accompanied it

It seems the limited redactions in the Opinion somehow makes up for the trial's lack of transparency

Nor was Google ever sanctioned for its past discovery violations

The remedies hearing transcripts should be released to the public

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#125

Post by JumpCrisscross »

nielsbot wrote: post #115
bpt3 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at the effective tax rates and get back to me. You have a lot of thoughts on something you know very little about.

Are you're saying nominal tax rates have no correlation to effective tax rates? (Also, I am in favor of closing tax loopholes.)

> you're saying nominal tax rates have no correlation to effective tax rates?

For the rich, yes. Across societies. Despotic regimes have ridiculously high nominal tax rates because they just steal stuff, but that only applies to the poor.

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#126

Post by [deleted] »

idle_zealot wrote: post #17
jmward01 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have nothing against rich. I have everything against a single person having a megaphone for themselves and a gag for everyone else and still calling it a democracy. We need strong laws that reduce the voice of money and increase the voice of individuals. Having said that, the practical implication is that money needs to loose power and there are very few ways to truly do that other than just take it away. So, I agr…

I'm not sure I understand what distinction you're drawing between ideological opposition to rich people existing and opposition to disproportionately powerful people existing. In what hypothetical world are these not the exact same thing? Money is a unit of exchange that exists to compel action. That's the point of it, and is just another way of saying "power over others". A world where being rich doesn't grant power…

[deleted]

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#128

Post by nielsbot »

bpt3 wrote: post #123
nielsbot wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you're saying nominal tax rates have no correlation to effective tax rates? (Also, I am in favor of closing tax loopholes.)

No, I'm saying that the marginal rates you're salivating over produced effective rates on the highest earners that weren't much different from today.

But does that mean we shouldn't raise taxes?

"Effective Income Tax Rates Have Fallen for The Top One Percent Since World War II" https://taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/effective-income-tax-rate...

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#129

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

AceJohnny2 wrote: post #54

> One of the facts established in the verdict was that Google had been slipping Apple more than $20b/year in exchange for which, Apple forbore from making a competing search engine. Didn't Apple say that 1) they weren't interested in being in the Search Engine business 2) (in testimony) Google was by far the best search engine that they were going to use anyway ? Certainly, $20B/Y weighs on the scale, but knowing App…

"Didn't Apple say that 1) they weren't interested in being in the Search Engine business 2) (in testimony) Google was by far the best search engine that they were going to use anyway ?"

That testimony worked in favor of the government

It raises the question, "Then why pay them?"

Google had no answer

The company always has an alternative explanation for its actions that lacks any relation to advertising services, or profit motive

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#130

Post by AnthonyMouse »

bpt3 wrote: post #123
nielsbot wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you're saying nominal tax rates have no correlation to effective tax rates? (Also, I am in favor of closing tax loopholes.)

No, I'm saying that the marginal rates you're salivating over produced effective rates on the highest earners that weren't much different from today.

It seems like I post this graph here a lot. Federal receipts as a percent of GDP:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S

Basically flat since WWII, despite significant growth in GDP per capita, and before that it was lower.

The high marginal rates in the mid-20th century were fictional because at the time there were so many loopholes that nobody actually paid them. If you think there are a lot of loopholes now, you have no idea. When the marginal rates were lowered, enough of the loopholes were closed at the same time that if you tried to guess when it happened by looking at that graph, you wouldn't be able to tell.

Also, some of the loopholes are still there, but what does that imply for the theory that lower rates are the relevant change? When Richie Rich (or Microsoft) is claiming no taxable income, 60% of nothing is the same as 20% of nothing.

But if that isn't the change, what is? Well, in 1995 the largest company by market cap was GE at ~$92B. In today's dollars that's ~$197B. The largest company today is $4154B. More than 2000% bigger even adjusted for inflation.

And it's the corporations buying the politicians anyway. Who is paying the money, Larry Page or Google? It's Google. If the company is that big, it doesn't matter if it's owned by one person or a million, the CEO has control of enough resources to buy the government, and then does.

Make business small again.

Post reply on HN